-LRB- CNN -RRB- By now , you probably have a position regarding the controversy over Indiana 's religious freedom law .

You applaud the growing chorus of companies blasting the law as an invitation for businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians , using religion as a cover .

Or , like Indiana Gov. Mike Pence , you are surprised at the backlash and maintain that it is basically a copy of a law that is already in the books at the federal level and 19 other states .

The issue drives a wedge because , well , the debate over religious freedom and gay rights is always heated , but also because the interpretations and motives behind the law can be questioned .

Whichever side you 're on , here are five things you might not have considered when thinking about this controversy . These points might not change your mind , but offer context to better understand the uproar .

As the author of the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act -LRB- RFRA -RRB- , Sen. Chuck Schumer is one who can offer clarity over the controversy surrounding Indiana 's version of the law .

Schumer mocks Indiana 's contention that the state law is simply a mirror of the 22-year-old federal law . `` That may be true only if you 're using a Funhouse mirror , '' Schumer wrote on his Facebook page .

The federal law was intended to protect individual 's religious freedom from government intervention , he said . The Indiana law justifies discrimination in the name of religious freedom , he contends .

Also , the law was envisioned to protect the religious freedoms of individuals , while the Indiana law also protects private companies , Schumer said .

So , how can the law 's supporters claim it is basically a copy of the federal law ?

If you look at the purpose of the law , the language in the federal and Indiana religious freedom laws are indeed nearly indistinguishable . In short -- the government can not interfere with a person 's religious practices unless there is a compelling government interest to do so .

The uproar is over that fact that the Indiana law expands the reach of the religious protections to include private companies and cases where the government is not involved .

Other states previously passed their own version of the religious freedom law -- Indiana became the 20th . But other state laws mirror the federal law much more closely than the Indiana law does .

The key difference in the Indiana law is that it expands the instances where someone can use religious freedom as a defense .

This is how it could make a difference :

In 2006 , Vanessa Willock contacted a photographer about shooting her commitment ceremony with her partner . This was in New Mexico , a state with a religious freedom law at the time of the dispute . The company , Elane Photography , refused the job because of the co-owner 's religious beliefs .

Willock sued Elane Photography for discrimination , and the company defended itself by citing the law . The photography studio lost the case because the court ruled that it could not use the religious freedom law because the dispute was between two private parties and not a government entity .

What would happen if that case happened today in Indiana , with the new , expanded religious freedom law ?

For sure , the case would have proceeded to trial , said Tim Holbrook , a law professor at Emory University . The photography studio would have had the chance to make its argument in court that it denied the service because of religious reasons .

Would the outcome have been the same ? Would an Indiana jury side with the company that refused service to a couple because of their sexual orientation ?

In a letter expressing concern about the Indiana law , a group of 30 legal scholars argued that what Indiana has done is expanded the scope of the law to the point that religious considerations might trump discrimination concerns .

`` In our expert opinion , the clear evidence ... unmistakably demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create confusion , conflict , and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state 's ability to enforce other compelling interests , '' the letter , whose signatories included many Indiana law professors , stated .

These concerns are based on speculation of what might happen , said Josh Blackman , a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law .

Yes , the Indiana law makes it clear that individuals and private companies can use the religious freedom law as a defense , he said . `` But , just because you raise the defense does not mean it will be successful . ''

Those who try to defend their discriminatory actions in court tend to lose , Blackman said . In his opinion , if Elane Photography had been able to use the law as a defense in New Mexico , it still likely would have lost the case .

What 's clear is that Indiana 's law increases the potential pool of people who can defend themselves claiming religious freedom . The success of such arguments is to be seen .

In the meantime , some are already hatching plans on how to test the law , including Bill Levin , founder of The First Church Of Cannabis , who argued on CNN that the law should protect his right to smoke pot .

Much is being made of the fact that the first religious freedom law was signed by President Bill Clinton more than 20 years ago . There was bipartisan support in 1993 , so why the commotion over a similar law in 2015 , some ask ?

Context , timing and intent have changed the way these laws are viewed .

The federal law was written by two Democrats , Schumer and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy . Today , it is being championed by Republicans .

The law came into being after two Native Americans in Oregon were fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic because they had consumed peyote , the hallucinogenic cactus . They were denied unemployment benefits , and they sued the state , claiming that the peyote was part of their religious customs .

They lost the case .

There was outrage over the decision , and the law was created as a remedy . As envisioned by its authors , it would protect the freedoms of religious minorities .

Over the years , the law helped a number of people -- a Muslim prisoner won the right to grow a short beard , a Santeria priest was allowed to sacrifice a goat on special religious occasions , and a Native American boy received an exception to his school 's policy banning long hair on boys .

The law was on the books for years , with little attention paid to it .

But Holbrook says it is no coincidence that the religious freedom laws became popular at the state level just as the gay rights and marriage equality movement made historic steps .

Many states are using the laws to carve out exceptions to allow Christians to deny services to same-sex couples . Holbrook said .

`` The timing is beyond a coincidence , '' he said . `` We are having an interest in RFRA at the time same-sex marriage is coming forward . ''

Though not enshrined in the law , critics accuse the states pursuing the laws of using them to justify discrimination by the majority religion .

Blackman said the history of the state religious freedom laws shows that they have not turned into conduits for discrimination .

The expanded laws might mean more people will defend themselves using it , but most will likely lose , he said .

`` The moral outrage over this reflects how uninformed people are on the history of the RFRA , '' he said .

So we 've established that the biggest difference between the federal law and the Indiana law is the scope : In Indiana , the law can be raised as a defense in private disputes , while the federal law applies only to government matters .

Not so fast .

According to Blackman , the interpretations of the federal religious freedom law are not uniform .

Four U.S. circuit courts of appeals have ruled that the federal law can be used as a defense in cases involving private parties . Two other appeals courts have ruled that this is not allowed .

And then , there is the Hobby Lobby case .

Hobby Lobby , citing the federal religious freedom law , argued that it should not have to provide contraception coverage through insurance to its employees via Obamacare because it was against the owners ' beliefs .

And , Hobby Lobby won the case before the Supreme Court .

The ruling , in effect , expanded the reach of the federal law to include a business . The Hobby Lobby decision , plus the appeals courts rulings , may have opened the door for states like Indiana to be explicit about its expansion of the law .

One way to look at it , Blackman said , is that Indiana simply clarified and codified something that is hazy in the federal courts .

The outrage over the Indiana law is that it can be used to deny services to the LGBT community on the ground of religious beliefs .

Some may rightfully ask , `` Where was the outrage before the religious freedom law ? ''

Indiana does not have an nondiscrimination law that protects people based on sexual orientation or gender identity . In that sense , the religious freedom law is not necessary for those who want to discriminate against gays and lesbians .

Even before the controversial Indiana law was passed , if a restaurant denied service to a gay couple , the couple might be able to sue , but not for discrimination .

For that matter , there is also no federal law that protects the LGBT community .

According to the Human Rights Campaign , lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender people are sometimes fired , denied a promotion or harassed in the workplace . And their recourse is limited .

With the proliferation of religious freedom state laws , nondiscrimination laws become even more important .

Another hypothetical outcome of the New Mexico case involving the lesbian couple and the photography studio . If New Mexico had the same religious freedom law as Indiana , the case would have gone to trial . But New Mexico has a nondiscrimination law that protects the LGBT community , it and it would have provided a strong counter-argument to the religious freedom claim .

In Indiana , that protection would be lacking . -LRB- It gets more complicated when some local governments , like the city of Indianapolis , do have nondiscrimination ordinances -RRB- .

For this reason , Holbrook suggests that a `` fix '' for the Indiana law would be the passage of a nondiscrimination law . Or , at the very least , an exception written into the religious freedom bill that protects from such discrimination .

@highlight

The controversy over Indiana 's religious freedom law is complicated

@highlight

Some factors you might have not considered